Privatization of Wichita city parks

In a post concerning the possible privatization of City of Wichita parks maintenance, I called for, in a rather oblique way, privatization of city parks. A commenter picked up on this and wrote “I’m wondering how the parks would be decided by the market. Wouldn’t the parks have to charge an entry fee in that case?”

It’s a good question. Broadly, what would happen if the City of Wichita decided not to provide public parks? Would there then be any privately owned parks? What would these parks be like, if there were any?

As there are very few examples of privately-owned parks in America, we don’t really know how privately-owned parks would work. But that’s no reason we shouldn’t consider this idea.

The first thing we need to do is to dissuade ourselves of the false notion that the present system of municipal parks means free parks. They aren’t free. They seem to be free — or nearly so — to those who use them, because there is no admission fee charged.

One way that private parks might work is that their owners would charge an admission fee. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be an impenetrable fence surrounding the park and a toll gate at the single entrance. There could be other ways to collect admission fees.

Another way that a private owner might generate revenue and potential profit through owning a park is by the selling of concessions. Besides the obvious selling of food and drink, some other examples come to mind. A vendor might rent lockers for the storage of bicycles, so that it would be convenient for people to drive to the park and use their bicycles.

Vendors might rent roller skates. I rented these in college on the KU campus, and it was fun. Other things could be rented too, even paddle boats on the Little Arkansas River, as in the old days.

A private park might offer nanny service, so parents could drop off their young children for a session of supervised play.

A private park would probably provide security services so that its patrons feel safe. Would people be willing to pay for that?

A private park might sell advertising or sponsorship. Philanthropy could play a role, too.

So there could be many ways in which private parks could operate.

While the goal of private park owners would usually be to attract many people to patronize their parks, private owners would be able to exclude people from the park. Advocates for the present parks workers say that the workers clean the public parks of needles and syringes. This indicates that at present, the parks are used for activities that most people, especially families, don’t want to be around. Would a private owner of a park have an incentive to keep his park free of illegal drug users? Absolutely — and much more so than it appears the Wichita police do. And being privately owned, the owner would have the right to exclude drug users, noisemakers, smokers, beer drinkers, panhandlers, fornicators, proselytizers, sidewalk preachers, politicians, and others from his park. He could even impose a dress code.

(Which reminds me of a joke: A conservative said, “I am distressed by the idea of fornication in public parks.” The libertarian replied, “I am distressed by the idea of public parks.” )

Privately-owned parks would bring benefits, the nature of which we really can’t foresee and predict. Entrepreneurs are highly motivated to discover and meet consumer wishes and demands. They can experiment to see what works. The costs of their failures are born only by them. When public officials take risks and fail, they’re criticized for wasting public funds. This is a reason why little innovation comes from government.

By unleashing entrepreneurial creativity, there might be a tremendous diversity of parks springing up with features we can’t even dream of now.

Entrepreneurs don’t have to go through plodding approval of long-range plans as Wichita recently did with its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) plan. This plan, according to its brochure, took 18 months to develop. How will it be funded? According to a memo accompanying the plan, “Present funding levels are insufficient to adequately cover the costs of the Department’s current facilities and programs.” I don’t sense much groundswell of support for raising revenue to increase this funding. So are we left to conclude that the method of public funding of the parks is failing? It seems so.

Back to my post from the other day: Another commenter wrote that the views I hold are those of “free-market extremists.” To which I reply: thank you for noticing.

This writer also wrote: “Hence, if there is no market or capitalistic value for parks, then why have them at all.”

This is my point. If people don’t value parks enough to pay for them as they use them (or let private owners profit in ways that I described above, or in other ways), then we’re faced with the situation we have today: First the government taxes everyone. Then politicians, bureaucrats, and a small group of enthusiasts decide how much recreation the people should have, and where and in what form.

I ask you: could anything be more extreme — not to mention counterproductive — than this?

7 thoughts on “Privatization of Wichita city parks”

I didn’t label you a free-market extremist, but since you willing took the label, I guess wear the shoe that fits. I guess we will agree to disagee. Your blogs and opinions are informative and to a certain extent on target; however, more often than not you seem to think that we no longer have a representative government.

For example, you make this comment above, “First the government taxes everyone. Then politicians, bureaucrats, and a small group of enthusiasts decide how much recreation the people should have, and where and in what form.” The problem that many have, although not necessarily you, is that they are not engaged in the political process. Most of the public pays little attention to the dealings of the government. They just want to go about their lives and be left alone. Voter apathy is readily apparent given the number of registered voters relative to those that can vote and also given the number of registered voters who actually vote.

Nonetheless, the elected officials are there to represent everyone. If a person wants to be heard, then become engaged in the process. However, extremists, far left or far right, don’t have much success because they often don’t respect or can’t see anyone’s perspective but their own. Politics is the art of compromise and extremist often don’t know how to compromise whatsoever. Unless one is willing to become engaged, have respectful, substantive dialogue, is willing to consider different perspectives and is willing to compromise, they’re not going to get very far.

I’m not so jaded as to believe that our local government is controlled by a limited few. For the most part, I believe our local officials to a pretty good job at balancing a myriad of interests. It is a thankless job quite frankly.

As to the park privatization issue, your comments are fundamentally flawed to begin with. Being a free market person myself in most things it makes the most sense. Furthermore, I’m also generally of the opinion that if it makes so much sense then the private sector would already be doing it. In other words, if the private sector could profit and do things better, then they would. As we know, they do and yes they make money. An example would be entertainment theme parks such as Six Flags. A more localized example would be a ski club that leases a lake for recreational skiing.

However, in some cases, such as our city’s park system, privatization doesn’t make sense. Again, if it did, the private sector would already being doing it regardless if the city had parks. The fact of the matter is that most of the city’s parks are used for leisure activities that produce little if any income. If the city’s park system didn’t exist, people would pursue these activites elsewhere and not necessarily in a for-profit environment. Also, I’m not sure that there is a prohibition against anyone setting up shop at say Riverside Park and leasing bicycles for use in the river corridor. So for-profit business and public parks can and do co-exist.

Privatization of the parks is not the answer because it wouldn’t work. The real questions are, “is there public benefit in the city parks?” and, “should we continue to fund them at all?”

Government can and does play an important role in providing services and opportunities to the whole that might not be available otherwise. Things like police and fire protection, emergency services, public infrastructure such water, sewer, roads, and yes parks.

I agree with Pat and I consider myself a free-market libertatian. Bob, what about memorials and places of historical significance. Do you believe Civil War battlefields should be protected and preserved? Or do you believe it is ok to build commercial businesses over them? Do your ideas carry over to state and national parks?

I view the pool, and kids play area (park??!!) provided by my homeowners associations as a quasi private park. People are willing to pay dues (and move into an area) that provides the services. I would argue that this is the direction parks are going. I would use use a public park for the reasons mentioned above, but I gladly pay my homeowners dues for the recreation araes we have.

Bob, my perception of what you are saying is that parks should not be a part of a governments budget because they are under funded. That parks should be privatized and only those who can afford to participate will enjoy a park. Should we privatize all other government systems that are under funded?
In Wichita that would mean only those that could afford police protection would have that service. We would be paying tolls to travel on all our streets and bridges that would be owned by “an entrepreneaur. Your need to return to the 1850’s where the citizens carried a gun for protection is extreme and not real. Would you also have us buy fire protection from a neighbor or have a fire wagon in every driveway?

Truman, I didn’t read Bob saying that any of the other things you cite should be privatized too, so you’re sort of over-reacting, don’t you think? Putting words in someone’s mouth when they didn’t say these things is not an honest form of criticism.

I’ll just add my two cents that I completely agree with the idea of privatizing parks. The civil government has no business involving itself in providing “leisure activities,” period. Leave it to the market because the market knows best.

The most serious critique seems to come from the first commenter: “Again, if it [privatization] did [make sense], the private sector would already being doing it regardless if the city had parks. The fact of the matter is that most of the city’s parks are used for leisure activities that produce little if any income. If the city’s park system didn’t exist, people would pursue these activites elsewhere and not necessarily in a for-profit environment.”

If the civil government provides something for “free” (i.e., coercively taxes citizens to fund its activities), of course the free market is not going to compete by providing the exact same service. Ergo, the basic model is flawed, as the commenter points out by stating that people would pursue these activities elsewhere, whether in a for-profit environment or not. In other words, people might use their own backyards, their church grounds, farmland in the country, and so forth, for activities that they typically do in “free” (read: taxpayer-funded) parks.

To say that we should “privatize” the parks is missing the point, somewhat. It is more precisely accurate to say that the land should be sold to the highest bidder in the free market to be used for the most highly valued purpose in the market, whether that is parkland, a business complex, a hospital, a wildlife preserve, or whatever else it might be. Note, it doesn’t have to be a “for profit” purpose, even if the civil government remains uninvolved (e.g., a charity could purchase the park and maintain the grounds with private funding).

Featured Thoughts

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness — Declaration of Independence

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. — Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Government is essentially the negation of liberty. — Ludwig von Mises

It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government. — Thomas Paine

It does not take a majority to prevail, but an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. — Samuel Adams

You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor where they are, nor how many of them there are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you know, and no more: first, that they exist; second, that they will find you. — Albert Jay Nock

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that ... it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman

As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power. — F.A. Hayek

The kind of rules we should have are the kind that we'd make if our worst enemy were in charge. — Walter E. Williams

Your principle has placed these words above the entrance of the legislative chamber: “whosoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of legal plunder.” And what has been the result? All classes have flung themselves upon the doors of the chamber crying: “A share of the plunder for me, for me!” — Frederic Bastiat

This was all before politicians gave us the idea that the things we could not afford individually we could somehow afford collectively through the magic of government. — Thomas Sowell

While the short-run prospects for liberty at home and abroad may seem dim, the proper attitude for the Libertarian to take is that of unquenchable long-run optimism. — Murray N. Rothbard

Barbra Streisand told Diane Sawyer that we're in a global warming crisis, and we can expect more and more intense storms, droughts and dust bowls. But before they act, weather experts say they're still waiting to hear from Celine Dion. — Jay Leno

The great virtue of free enterprise is that it forces existing businesses to meet the test of the market continuously, to produce products that meet consumer demands at lowest cost, or else be driven from the market. It is a profit-and-loss system. Naturally, existing businesses generally prefer to keep out competitors in other ways. That is why the business community, despite its rhetoric, has so often been a major enemy of truly free enterprise. — Milton Friedman

Increasingly, it seems that the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives know government is force. But that doesn't stop them from using it. — John Stossel

One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license. — P.J. O'Rourke

Late one night in Washington, D.C. a mugger wearing a ski mask jumped into the path of a well-dressed man and stuck a gun in his ribs. "Give me your money!" he demanded. Indignant, the affluent man replied, "You can't do this. I'm a United States Congressman!" "In that case," replied the robber, "give me my money!" — Related by Walter Block

The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives, who are often attached to the monarchical traditions of a happily obsolete European past, libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy. Libertarians are the only genuine current heirs of Jefferson, Paine, Jackson, and the abolitionists. — From "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" by Murray N. Rothbard

No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?” When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? — Thomas Sowell

Here’s Williams’ law: Whenever the profit incentive is missing, the probability that people’s wants can be safely ignored is the greatest. — Walter E. Williams

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. — Barry Goldwater

A society that puts equality — in the sense of equality of outcome — ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. — Milton Friedman

When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself. — F.A. Hayek

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. — H.L. Mencken

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. — Benjamin Franklin

What is euphemistically called government-corporate "partnership" is just government coercion, political favoritism, collectivist industrial policy, and old-fashioned federal boondoggles nicely wrapped up in a bright-colored ribbon. It doesn’t work. — Ronald Reagan

Those fighting for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of those rich today. They want a free hand left to unknown men who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. — Ludwig von Mises

The problem is big government. If whoever controls government can impose his way upon you, you have to fight constantly to prevent the control from being harmful. With small, limited government, it doesn’t much matter who controls it, because it can’t do you much harm. — Harry Browne

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. — Frederic Bastiat

It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil. — F.A. Hayek

Freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself ... Economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom. — Milton Friedman

Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. — Will Rogers

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. — Norman Thomas

[The political system] tends to give undue political power to small groups that have highly concentrated interests; to give greater weight to obvious, direct and immediate effects of government action than to possibly more important but concealed, indirect and delayed effects; to set in motion a process that sacrifices the general interest to serve special interests rather than the other way around. There is, as it were, an invisible hand in politics that operates in precisely the opposite direction to Adam Smith's invisible hand. — Milton Friedman

I'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. — William F. Buckley Jr.

Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end. — Lord Acton

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. — Milton Friedman

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens. — Adam Smith

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. — H.L. Mencken

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard. — Alan Greenspan, “Gold and Economic Freedom” [1966]

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion — the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals — the technique of the marketplace. — Milton Friedman

The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one’s property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage. — Walter Williams

In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then ... they came for me ...
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.
— Pastor Martin Niemöller

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money — if a gun is held to his head. — P.J. O'Rourke

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community. — David Boaz

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. — Thomas Jefferson

After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. — Walter E. Williams

One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary. — Ayn Rand

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick. ... It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. — Adam Smith

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. — Immanuel Kant

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it. — Frederic Bastiat